dbr wrote:It would also mean that if they had declined to deal Hodgson at the deadline, that they would have to either have returned him to his normal deployment (when he scored at about a 20-30 point pace if I remember correctly) or would have had to spend the remainder of the season continuing to organize their lineup around making Cody Hodgson look like a productive offensive player on a top team.

The former would potentially undermind Hodgson's trade value (meaning that no you can't simply wait to make a deal) and the latter would have been done at the expense of the team's best interests.. hardly "win now" behaviour.

- One last fun question. Do you think Buffalo would do a reverse trade right now? Based on what I've seen on Buffalo forums, I would say the answer is no.

They almost certainly wouldn't given the performances of Foligno and the flashes Hodgson showed of offensive potential given more responsibility and more minutes.

That being said if Kassian was still a Sabre and Hodgson was still a Canuck, and he'd ended the season the same place he did last season (the team's fourth or fifth best centre, minimal offensive production) then the Canucks would probably be selling much lower on him than they did at the deadline.

- I have no stats to back me up here because I actually have to work but I would hypothesize that normal Coho deployment is more effective than Kassian deployment.

- Given what we saw from Kassian as well as looking at Kassian's Buffalo stats leading up to the trade, in terms of trading for Kassian, I don't think Coho's value would be decreased.

- In terms of reorganizing the team to "pump" Coho up, if we're still winning games and it makes Coho look better, why the heck not? It's not like Kesler was exactly lighting up the scoresheet. As well, the Canucks had been on top of the league for the majority of the season already. There really is no risk here.

Mantle wrote:But if Cody was being protected and pumped in order to increase his value, there is no need to wait if one of your 6 is available and a deal can be closed. Delaying until the offseason would only tie MGs hands to keep pumping and protecting Cody until the end of the year, and for what end? Only to possibly trade him for one of the 6 then? I don't see the benefit of waiting when the deal could be closed immediately.

There is if the only one out of your top 6 is better suited to play in the AHL than in the NHL.

We're not a training camp but that's what I felt we were when I saw Kassian play.

Some say pumping and protecting. Others say, training and developing. There should be no problem with putting a player in the best possible situation to succeed. Get Coho some points and goals. Get him some confidence. Tell his agent and his dad to fuck off and situation is solved for the time being.

mathonwy wrote:- I have no stats to back me up here because I actually have to work but I would hypothesize that normal Coho deployment is more effective than Kassian deployment.

Offensively, probably. Defensively, I don't know. To me a telltale game was when the Canucks played a deep Detroit team and Hodgson was badly outplayed in his matchup against Darren Helm (ie. not Detroit's best, or second best center - in fact I don't follow the Wings but I thought he was a fourth liner).

If Hodgson is getting burned against good teams about as often as he is burning them, or perhaps less often since he's not getting to start in the offensive zone as much, what's the benefit of having him around? Plenty of players can tread water against third and fourth lines.

- Given what we saw from Kassian as well as looking at Kassian's Buffalo stats leading up to the trade, in terms of trading for Kassian, I don't think Coho's value would be decreased.

Maybe not, although you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight here. Even if you're exactly right, that would mean the only thing the Canucks would gain by trading Hodgson at the deadline would be the ability to organize their lineup in a way that reflects what they think is their best chance to win (rather than their best chance to move Hodgson).

- In terms of reorganizing the team to "pump" Coho up, if we're still winning games and it makes Coho look better, why the heck not? It's not like Kesler was exactly lighting up the scoresheet. As well, the Canucks had been on top of the league for the majority of the season already. There really is no risk here.

I don't really have a problem with them doing what they did, and like you said they were humming along nicely for most of the season. But that doesn't make it a sustainable option, in other words just because it worked for a month doesn't mean it was going to work for two months, or three, or three plus the playoffs.

Anyway, whatever. The way this team played over the last part of the season, along with the injury to Daniel, probably made it impossible for them to go on any significant run - Cody or no Cody. I don't really see what else there is to discuss, given we agree that the timing of the deal was not a make-or-break factor in the Canucks season.

Topper wrote:Ol Larry, that is real nice work by those fucking clowns. Thank them for me for telling me something in late April, after GMMG has spilled the beans, that they should have noted in January.